Back
MAHENDAR KUMAR GOYAL
Yougesh @ Pintu – Appellant
Versus
State of Rajasthan – Respondent
ORDER
1. This parole petition has been filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India with the prayer that the order dated 11.01.2021 issued pursuant to the meeting of Permanent Parole Committee dated 04.12.2020 whereby the petitioner has been denied permanent parole on the ground of non availing of three regular paroles, be quashed.
2. It has been submitted in the petition that the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Bandikui, District Dausa vide its judgment dated 18.12.2015 convicted the petitioner for the offence under Sections 302/34 & 342 of IPC and sentenced to maximum life imprisonment. The petitioner filed DB Criminal Appeal No.174/2016 which was partly allowed by this Court and the sentence was reduced to 10 years.
3. It has further been submitted that the petitioner had served 8 years 2 months and 29 days of imprisonment (including remission) upto 25.01.2021 out of the total sentence of 10 years. He was released on two paroles of 20 and 30 days respectively granted by the Parole Committee. In this way, he has served a substantive part of his sentence. He never misused the liberty of parole and on completion of the parole period he surrendered before the concerned autho
Permanent parole cannot be denied solely on the basis of not availing three regular paroles without adverse evidence.
Non-availing of three regular paroles is not a sound ground for refusal of permanent parole, especially when the petitioner has served a substantive part of the sentence and has a good conduct record....
The main legal point established in the judgment is that the non-availment of three regular paroles is not a valid ground for refusal of permanent parole, especially when the petitioner demonstrates ....
Non-availing of three regular paroles is not a sound ground for refusal of permanent parole, especially when the petitioner has demonstrated good conduct during previous paroles.
Non-availing of three regular paroles is not a sufficient ground to deny permanent parole, especially when the petitioner has demonstrated good conduct and behavior during previous paroles.
Non-availing of three regular paroles is not a sufficient ground to deny permanent parole, especially when the petitioner has demonstrated good conduct and behavior during previous paroles.
The non-availing of three regular paroles is not a sufficient ground to deny permanent parole, especially when the petitioner has demonstrated good conduct during previous paroles and there is no adv....
Denial of permanent parole on technical grounds requires adverse evidence; good conduct can warrant parole eligibility.
The Court emphasized the importance of considering the petitioner's conduct during previous paroles, the period of sentence served, and the absence of evidence supporting the allegations in determini....
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
